DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the mixing region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suspected that claim 18 should depend on claim 17- not claim 16- and this interpretation will be followed in the art rejections below. However, correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113771265 by Zhang et al.
Zhang describes a waste disposable mask recycling technique.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang describes a method of recycling polypropylene-based disposable masks (personal protective equipment), comprising:
conveying a feed of masks (“collect and sort discarded disposable masks” translation p.3 Example 1 item 1)
cleaning the masks (Example 1 item 2, UV sterilizing)
fragmenting the masks (Example 1 item 3, pulverizing)
separating the polypropylene from non-polypropylene (Example 1 item 3 and 4, p.1 paragraph 4 mask fabric is polypropylene)
pelletizing the polypropylene fragments to produce polypropylene pellets (granules, Example 1 item 6)
Regarding claim 2, Zhang describes using ultraviolet light (Example 1 item 2).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang describes twin screw mixing and extrusion (Example 1 item 6 and p.4 paragraph 2), wherein the description of “twin screw mixing” reads on compacting and melting the polypropylene. Once extruded, Zhang does not describe maintaining the high temperature which was inside the extruder, thus also meets instant “cooling the molten polypropylene”. Zhang’s description of granulation (p.4 paragraph 2 and p.3 Example 1 item 6) meets the instant “cutting the extruded polypropylene”.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang describes temperatures between 175-180 in the extruder (p.4 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang describes mixing granules (p.4 paragraph 2) in an extruder which has a screw (p.4 paragraph 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113771265 by Zhang et al in view of CN108464547 by Wang.
Zhang is described above.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang describes UV sterilization prior to fragmenting (p.3 Example 1 item 2) but is silent as to UV treatment after fragmenting the masks. Zhang describes cleaning in a cleaning tank (p.3 Example 1 item 5) after fragmenting but does not specify the aspects of cleaning.
Wang describes a medical mask manufacturing method.
Wang describes a sterilizing/cleaning step for the mask which involves ultraviolet illumination and high temperature sterilization (translation p.1 item S2 and S5). Wang states that these steps contribute to ensuring cleanliness (p.2 paragraph 5). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose the cleaning details described by Wang where Zhang more broadly states “cleaning” in order to ensure cleanliness of the mask parts.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang describes fragmenting the masks (Example 1 item 3, pulverizing) and separating the polypropylene from non-polypropylene (Example 1 item 3 and 4, p.1 paragraph 4 mask fabric is polypropylene) and placement on a belt i.e. dispersing before cleaning (Example 1 item 5), wherein the second UV treatment is described above by Wang.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113771265 by Zhang et al in view of WO 9937452 by De Feraudy.
Zhang is described above.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang describes separating the crushed mask fragments in a separation pool but is silent as to the instantly claimed separation (a) or (b).
De Feraudy describes separating all categories of polymer materials.
De Feraudy describes using eddy current to separate non-ferrous metals, stating that it separates metals trapped in other materials (translation p.6 antepenultimate paragraph). Thus it would be obvious to add De Feraudy’s treatment of eddy current to Zhang’s mask fragments in order to separate metals trapped in other materials.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113771265 by Zhang et al in view of TR 202007941 by Dasdemir et al.
Zhang is described above.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang describes collecting disposable masks (p.3 Example 1 item 1) but is silent as to their treatment prior to starting his process.
Dasdemir describes a disinfection method for protective equipment.
Dasdemir describes subjecting protective items including masks (translation p.3 paragraph 2) to ozone treatment (p.3 paragraph 3 and final paragraph) prior to re-use (p.3 paragraph 3). Dasdemir states that ozone can destroy bacteria and viruses and is a natural disinfectant that does not leave residue, as well as being fast, effective, strong and reliable (p.3 final paragraph). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to subject the masks to Dasdemir’s ozone process prior to Zhang’s re-use in order to destroy bacteria and viruses.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang describes removing the non-propylene based material after receiving the masks, i.e. after Dasdemir’s process (Zhang Example 1 item 3 and 4, p.1 paragraph 4 mask fabric is polypropylene).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113771265 by Zhang et al in view of Chp. 7.1.8 “Melt Filters” in “"Plastics Packaging - Properties, Processing, Applications, and Regulations” by Selke et al.
Zhang is described above.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Zhang describes extrusion (p.4 paragraph 2) but is silent as to if the extruder has a filter.
Selke describes extrusion and extruders.
Selke states that extruders generally contain screens for filtering out impurities, and that Screen packs need to be changed periodically as impurities build up. Selke further states that usually the pressure drop through the screen is monitored to provide an indication of the need for a change of the screen (p.225 section 7.1.8). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to have a screen (Filter) on Zhang’s extruder and also monitoring the pressure and cleaning the screen once the threshold value is reached in order to filter impurities from the melt.
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113771265 by Zhang et al in view of “Screw Design” in Plastics Technology Handbook ed. by Chanda.
Zhang is described above.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang describes extrusion (p.4 paragraph 2) but is silent as to degassing during extrusion.
Chanda describes extruder screw design.
Chanda describes the use of degassing zones to remove volatile constituents from the melt before it is extruded from the die (p.188 paragraph 3) . Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to add degassing zones according to Chanda where Zhang is silent in order to remove volatile constituents from the mix in the extruder.
Regarding claim 20, in order to achieve this degassing, Chanda describes two extruders in sequence between which degassing occurs (p.188 paragraph 3). One of ordinary skill would adopt the extruder depicted in Chanda in order to achieve removal of volatile constituents.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113771265 by Zhang et al in view of Chp. 7.1.8 “Melt Filters” in “"Plastics Packaging - Properties, Processing, Applications, and Regulations” by Selke et al in further view of “Screw Design” in Plastics Technology Handbook ed. by Chanda.
Zhang, Selke and Chanda are described above.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang is silent as to the specific extruder setup described. However, Selke states that it is obvious to have a filter on each extruder to remove impurities (p.225 section 7.1.8) and Chanda describes the sequential extruder setup (p.188 paragraph 3) which achieves removal of volatile components. Thus it would be obvious to adopt Chanda’s sequential extruder setup with Selke’s filters on each extruder to remove impurities and volatile components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, 9, 10, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7, 9, 10 15, and 18 recite specifics which are not necessarily present in the closest art, CN 113771265 by Zhang et al, and are not rendered obvious by basic instruction in the recycling/extrusion art. Little has been published in the pre-instant application era regarding mechanical recycling of personal protective equipment, so a position of obviousness is difficult to take with regard to these sepcifics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766